The Snoopers Charter

Blumers Bloomers said:
Why would any law abiding citizen have an issue with this? The terrorist threat is at an all time high, if this helps the authorities combat this threat I don't see the problem.

Hope all proposals get full legislation and that the laws go far enough
Click to expand...

If you have no problem with various government having the authorities to snoop on you that's fine by me? Perhaps you should think about moving to China or North Korea where they have a similar regimes in place. Ever wondered how we are so keen to start a new golden age with Chinese here's a flavour of what we have to come if they get this snoopers charter through http://fusion.net/story/213422/online-profile-explosion/ With a little help from our eastern friends we can start a whole new personal profiling database just like them !!
 
As long as I can still freely watch porn online I don't give a shit. Couldn't in Indonesia. Never find anything incriminating on my email or Web history (except shady's blog maybe...). Don't give a fuck what they look for. Anything potentially dubious I'd do in person. If I wanted to. Doing it on the Internet would be an act of idiocy in most cases.

You know you can order magic mushrooms from Canada? Suggestion.
 
Blumers Bloomers said:
Why would any law abiding citizen have an issue with this? The terrorist threat is at an all time high, if this helps the authorities combat this threat I don't see the problem.

Hope all proposals get full legislation and that the laws go far enough
Click to expand...
Have you read '1984'' with its Thought Police?

Like most people I've certainly no problem with the state prosecuting people for crimes they've committed, as long as that's done with due regard for process. I've no particular problem with the state prosecuting people for crimes they are clearly about to commit, such as when a car full of guys armed with weapons and wearing balaclavas pulls up outside a jewellers. After all, it's unlikely that one of them just wants a new battery for a watch that's stopped. But where I get uneasy is when people are prosecuted for simply looking at web pages that are regarded as subversive, when there's no credible evidence they plan to do anything more than look.

The other issue is about what is regarded as "extremist" as that could be anything the state says. What if, for example, the police suspected that Bluemoon was a forum that encouraged football hooliganism because a couple of known hooligans posted here? Would you be happy if you were investigated simply because you posted in here and made a flippant remark about attacking someone?

If you think that's daft, under football banning orders, you can be banned or targeted for simply being "an associate" of a known hooligan. You're sat in a pub with your husband before a game and an old school pal, who's got convictions for football related violence that you know nothing about, comes up to say hello and have a couple of drinks with you. While he's doing that police come in and clock him with you, leading to you and your husband being hauled off and banned from attending the game. And if you think I'm exaggerating, I'll give you a couple of true examples that I know happened.

There's a former member of the City Young Guvnors, Rodney Rhoden, who wrote a book about his experiences. As a result of that, his son, who has never been in any trouble as far as I'm aware, is regularly filmed by police when at games. Even worse, when he needed a photo for the cover, he got a few lads together before a game and they had a picture taken. A girl, another law abiding citizen, who was with one of the lads also got dragged into the photo. As a result, she was hit with a banning order for being an associate of a known hooligan. Like I said I know for a fact these things actually occurred or I wouldn't have believed it myself.

And that's just football but it's a good example of why giving the state too many powers is not necessarily a good thing as they don't have the same concept of a "law abiding citizen" that you or I may have.
 
Last edited:
The "law abiding citizen" argument is a valid one if, you trust those in control.

Politicians and members of the security forces are totally honest and above board and would never abuse a position of power for personal or professional gain.
 
talkativesprout said:
The "law abiding citizen" argument is a valid one if, you trust those in control.

Politicians and members of the security forces are totally honest and above board and would never abuse a position of power for personal or professional gain.
Click to expand...

But aren't all politicians just law abiding citizens and their word is their bond!!
 
If the framing of the law didn't involve the word 'terrorists', I'd potentially agree with it more.

Professional terrorists, operate across the Internet with VPN+TOR and encryption/code words. Or, (eg Bin Laden, before he was 'found'), by air gaps - using paper and pen, USB sticks, word of mouth.
So tracking website domains is going to do nothing to stop the professionals.
If your talking amateurs or lone wolves who want to look up how to make a fertiliser bomb, then yes tracking domains might help... By allowing people to be tagged as 'person of interest'.
GCHQ /NSA can Hoover up most of the Internet traffic already by intercepting the major pipes undersea ( eg see info on the USS Jimmy Carter) or as they come onshore (see UK base on shore of gulf). The issue they have is with the higher levels of encryption being applied to consumer devices and apps by default nowadays.

I think the major issue with any legislation like this nowadays is the complete lack of trust, due to the exposures of Snowden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.